Sunday, December 05, 2004
BCS Madness
(forgive the typos, I have not proof read this one!)
Many people are whining about the lack of "fairness" in the Bowl Championship Series.
Oh, really.
These people want a communist system of college football: the elites (politburo) share everything somewhat equally, and to heck with the rest (everyone else).
The bowl system was originally designed to reward teams for a season well-competed in addition to trying to generate a little tourism and stature for the host cities and their related events.
It has grown into a greedy and ugly mess.
It is time to go back to the traditional system of major bowl games and major conference tie-ins. Let the fans argue all off-season about who was the real national champion (heck, doesn't that create more interest in the sport long after the season than anything else the NCAA has to offer? From a marketing perspective, a playoff makes little or no sense for a sport that has such a large number of student-athletes per team. Folks who compare NCAA Division I football to the same level of basketball are really clueless about the amount of lives affected. The real greed is located at the top and suppoted by the college version of Pravda, otherwise known as the sports writers who get to cover these events.
The following might be the dumbest, if not the strangest, statement of the day from the BCS mouthpiece, Keven Weiberg of the Big 12/BCS:
BCS TELECONFERENCE
BCS Coordinator and Big 12 Commissioner Kevin Weiberg's statements during the BCS teleconference
Comments regarding Texas going to the Rose Bowl:
"As you know, the rules that govern the BCS selection process are very much prescribed, and we followed the rules right down the patch. The way it works is that once the teams are identified that are in the pool from which the selection can be made, we then begin with the actual selection process. Since Southern Cal was the No. 1 team in the country and was the Rose Bowl's host team, the Rose Bowl then had the first selection to replace that departed host. The Rose Bowl did indicate, understanding that California was not available to be selected, that they preferred to select Texas. At that point, we did have to pause and make sure the Fiesta Bowl was prepared to pass on Texas since Texas comes from its host conference. It also was losing a champion in Oklahoma. The Fiesta Bowl did indicate their willingness for Texas to move over and play in the Rose Bowl. I think that was a very gracious gesture on their part and showed their support for the system."
What are you talking about, good sir, on TWO points?
1) The Rose Bowl gets first choice for a replacement since its team (Pac-10 USC) was #1.
2) The Rose Bowl should never be in a position for any other bowl game to affect who it wants to pick assuming it loses team(s) to another BCS game. It is the GRANDADDY of them all. Since traditional match-ups are shot for the time being, I think that the Rose Bowl should have been allowed to match Auburn vs. Texas or Cal or Utah. Weiberg's comments are just another reason why the Rose Bowl needs to get out of the BCS.
Texas
I am not one who normally looks at a team's past seasons to determine whether or not they deserve to be in a BCS game or whether they are a good fit for a bowl game as a general rule. But, Texas is the exception to the rule. The folks who run/ran FireMackBrown.com may be hiding for the time being, but my guess is that they will be back soon.... very soon.
It seems like Texas has been in the last 10 Holiday Bowls... well, three of the last four in reality, but it seems like they have been out here forever. From a fan standpoint, how many Texas fans will be willing to make the trip slightly north to Pasadena to see sights they have already seen once, if not three times, recently? My guess is that the answer is not very many, but, for the sake of the local economy, I hope I am wrong (and Texas fans do like to party in an upscale fashion, so who knows?). As for Michigan fans, they have had an off year, and this game means little to them.
An Auburn v. Texas matchup would have drawn a tremendous amount of people from both schools for sure. Auburn is undefeated, and Texas would be looking to make a statment that might actually fire up recruits and alums.
Cal
Cal should have lost at home to Oregon. Cal should have blown out directional Mississippi yesterday. Cal is better than Texas, but Cal lost to its own lack of tradition more than the east coast bias.
A Cal v. Texas matchup would have been better than what I will have to suffer through on Jan. 1 this year in Pasadena, but Cal needed to do more, and the Golden Bears did not.
Last shouldabeen match-up list
Based on yesterday and some sleep (and forgive me if it sounds contradictory):
Rose Bowl: Utah v. Auburn
Fiesta Bowl: Texas v. Michigan
Sugar Bowl: Va Tech v. Pittsburgh (game could/should be transferred to the Carrier Dome)
Orange Bowl: USC v. Oklahoma
Good night!
Many people are whining about the lack of "fairness" in the Bowl Championship Series.
Oh, really.
These people want a communist system of college football: the elites (politburo) share everything somewhat equally, and to heck with the rest (everyone else).
The bowl system was originally designed to reward teams for a season well-competed in addition to trying to generate a little tourism and stature for the host cities and their related events.
It has grown into a greedy and ugly mess.
It is time to go back to the traditional system of major bowl games and major conference tie-ins. Let the fans argue all off-season about who was the real national champion (heck, doesn't that create more interest in the sport long after the season than anything else the NCAA has to offer? From a marketing perspective, a playoff makes little or no sense for a sport that has such a large number of student-athletes per team. Folks who compare NCAA Division I football to the same level of basketball are really clueless about the amount of lives affected. The real greed is located at the top and suppoted by the college version of Pravda, otherwise known as the sports writers who get to cover these events.
The following might be the dumbest, if not the strangest, statement of the day from the BCS mouthpiece, Keven Weiberg of the Big 12/BCS:
BCS TELECONFERENCE
BCS Coordinator and Big 12 Commissioner Kevin Weiberg's statements during the BCS teleconference
Comments regarding Texas going to the Rose Bowl:
"As you know, the rules that govern the BCS selection process are very much prescribed, and we followed the rules right down the patch. The way it works is that once the teams are identified that are in the pool from which the selection can be made, we then begin with the actual selection process. Since Southern Cal was the No. 1 team in the country and was the Rose Bowl's host team, the Rose Bowl then had the first selection to replace that departed host. The Rose Bowl did indicate, understanding that California was not available to be selected, that they preferred to select Texas. At that point, we did have to pause and make sure the Fiesta Bowl was prepared to pass on Texas since Texas comes from its host conference. It also was losing a champion in Oklahoma. The Fiesta Bowl did indicate their willingness for Texas to move over and play in the Rose Bowl. I think that was a very gracious gesture on their part and showed their support for the system."
What are you talking about, good sir, on TWO points?
1) The Rose Bowl gets first choice for a replacement since its team (Pac-10 USC) was #1.
2) The Rose Bowl should never be in a position for any other bowl game to affect who it wants to pick assuming it loses team(s) to another BCS game. It is the GRANDADDY of them all. Since traditional match-ups are shot for the time being, I think that the Rose Bowl should have been allowed to match Auburn vs. Texas or Cal or Utah. Weiberg's comments are just another reason why the Rose Bowl needs to get out of the BCS.
Texas
I am not one who normally looks at a team's past seasons to determine whether or not they deserve to be in a BCS game or whether they are a good fit for a bowl game as a general rule. But, Texas is the exception to the rule. The folks who run/ran FireMackBrown.com may be hiding for the time being, but my guess is that they will be back soon.... very soon.
It seems like Texas has been in the last 10 Holiday Bowls... well, three of the last four in reality, but it seems like they have been out here forever. From a fan standpoint, how many Texas fans will be willing to make the trip slightly north to Pasadena to see sights they have already seen once, if not three times, recently? My guess is that the answer is not very many, but, for the sake of the local economy, I hope I am wrong (and Texas fans do like to party in an upscale fashion, so who knows?). As for Michigan fans, they have had an off year, and this game means little to them.
An Auburn v. Texas matchup would have drawn a tremendous amount of people from both schools for sure. Auburn is undefeated, and Texas would be looking to make a statment that might actually fire up recruits and alums.
Cal
Cal should have lost at home to Oregon. Cal should have blown out directional Mississippi yesterday. Cal is better than Texas, but Cal lost to its own lack of tradition more than the east coast bias.
A Cal v. Texas matchup would have been better than what I will have to suffer through on Jan. 1 this year in Pasadena, but Cal needed to do more, and the Golden Bears did not.
Last shouldabeen match-up list
Based on yesterday and some sleep (and forgive me if it sounds contradictory):
Rose Bowl: Utah v. Auburn
Fiesta Bowl: Texas v. Michigan
Sugar Bowl: Va Tech v. Pittsburgh (game could/should be transferred to the Carrier Dome)
Orange Bowl: USC v. Oklahoma
Good night!
